• Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).

The official Ron Paul thread

Migrated topic.
Who wants to vote for anyone in the GOP? They have destroyed America faster and widened the gap between poor and extremely wealthy more than any other group. They do not deserve any American's vote, not a single one of them.
 
benzyme said:
The reason Ron Paul gets snubbed is, he'll actually change the status quo in many respects.
Click to expand...
How?

blue_velvet said:
The President is Commander in Chief of the armed forces. This gives the President the power to order the troops home. We have spent trillions on these wars, trillions that could have been better spent at home. Even Ron Paul has explicitly stated he would prefer we spend that money on welfare than on murder and violence. To think we need to preserve stability and peace in the Middle East through our military might is neoconservatism. War is something Ron Paul can do something about without jumping through flaming hoops.
Click to expand...

Actually...this is not entirely true. Not only does the president not have such powers but much of the power that the president does have in this realm is without constitutional basis (these powers are inferred as a result of precedents set by several presidents throughout history). According to historian Thomas Woods, "Ever since the Korean War, Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution — which refers to the president as the 'Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States' — has been interpreted to mean that the president may act with an essentially free hand in foreign affairs, or at the very least that he may send men into battle without consulting Congress."

Here's what the constitution says, re: the president as commander in chief:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
Click to expand...

Bringing the troops back home is not only not solely a presidential responsibility (either officially or precedentially) but it clashes entirely with American Interests.

As covered in the first three pages of this thread, American troops are involved in protecting/fortifying/establishing billions of dollars worth of infrastructure throughout Iraq and Afghanistan alone. We have created the world's largest military complex in Baghdad. Just looking at this, it becomes clear that the troops will not be coming home in any meaningful sense...not any time soon. Once you start examining corporate projects like construction in the Kandahar valley for Haliburton, the likelihood of returning the troops drops even more. Finally, if you take all of that and look at Obama's promises regarding the troops (at least every bit as valid as Paul's) you see exactly the type of thing that happens with such promises...they either don't come true...or they "bring the troops home" by returning support/supply personnel while leaving thousands and thousands of triggermen overseas. There's simply far too much money at stake for the troops to come home...much less at the behest of a single man who doesn't have the power to authorize it.
 
Ray, you know I've got nothing but love for you...and in a sick and twisted way, I probably am getting some enjoyment out of this thread.

I know the other night got heated...I apologize if I said anything out of line.

much love

:D

EDIT: Hey...you changed your post...now this looks kinda non-sequiturial :p
 
SnozzleBerry said:
Actually...this is not entirely true. Not only does the president not have such powers but much of the power that the president does have in this realm is without constitutional basis (these powers are inferred as a result of precedents set by several presidents throughout history). According to historian Thomas Woods, "Ever since the Korean War, Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution — which refers to the president as the 'Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States' — has been interpreted to mean that the president may act with an essentially free hand in foreign affairs, or at the very least that he may send men into battle without consulting Congress."

Here's what the constitution says, re: the president as commander in chief:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
Click to expand...

Bringing the troops back home is not only not solely a presidential responsibility (either officially or precedentially) but it clashes entirely with American Interests.
Click to expand...

I am not convinced. If he does not have the power, who does? Usually the argument is whether the president has the power to wage war without congress support, and congress can certainly end the war if it is unpopular enough, but what is stopping the president from withdrawing troops? The president's power to initiate war is checked by congress (at least constitutionally), but his power to end it is not.
 
OBAMA APPOINTS MONSANTO'S VICE PRESIDENT AS SENIOR ADVISOR TO THE COMMISSIONER AT THE FDA.

God help us....



yeah I know snozz :) It actually really makes me quite happy we can have a discussion like this where things get heated but still have love for each other.

I enjoy the thread personally. I know your s smart guy and I'm glad your willing to have the discussion. <3

So no apology necessary my friend, I'm glad your willing to speak out and say what you really think, I can take it :)
 
blue_velvet said:
I am not convinced. If he does not have the power, who does? Usually the argument is whether the president has the power to wage war without congress support, and congress can certainly end the war if it is unpopular enough, but what is stopping the president from withdrawing troops? The president's power to initiate war is checked by congress (at least constitutionally), but his power to end it is not.
Click to expand...

Again...as with budget...as with drugs...as with just about everything (thanks to that wonderful system of checks and balances)...the answer is CONGRESS!!! It is congressional proposals, acts and resolutions that ultimately control the return of troops to the US.

Here's the wikipedia article on the withdrawal from Iraq...just glance through it...you'll see what's what.

Also, while you focus on the technicality of whose power it is to withdraw the troops, you ignore completely the reality of whether or not such an option would even be entertained by the corporate/financial interests that dominate American politics (and society).
 
SnozzleBerry said:
Also, while you focus on the technicality of whose power it is to withdraw the troops, you ignore completely the reality of whether or not such an option would even be entertained by the corporate/financial interests that dominate American politics (and society).
Click to expand...

Well, if you put it that way, why vote for anyone? Why even argue for or against any candidate? To save me time and gas money driving to the town hall? Of course, I have entertained this notion, like many Ron Paul supporters have, and I do not believe he is tempted or corrupted. This belief in his innocence is irrational and somewhat emotional, I know, but you cannot begin to know the intentions of someone through anything other than their actions. Without some kind of belief in his incorruptibility, I would reject him along with Obama and would not vote, which would make no difference.
 
[YOUTUBE]

I think this is a very thorough interview, and at some points one of the interviewers is even critical regarding some of Ron Paul's views. Around the 30 minute mark, the interview embarks onto discussions about compromising, the legislative process, and the limited power Ron Paul would have in getting things to go into effect. At 34:23, Paul's answer to the question of how he will get anything done is by building coalitions of democrats & republicans, arguing on principle, and showing that an uncompromising position regarding a sensible foreign policy is the best thing for the U.S.
 
blue_velvet said:
SnozzleBerry said:
Here's the wikipedia article on the withdrawal from Iraq...just glance through it...you'll see what's what.
Click to expand...

This says nothing of the president's ability to withdraw troops. Yes, I know congress can, but this does not preclude the former.
Click to expand...
Lol...well...see...now you're getting into a fallacious argument, specifically an "argument from ignorance." It is not on me to prove that the president cannot withdraw the troops...I showed you that congress does all the legal/political rigamarole for that (look through any troop withdrawal historically and you'll see that's the case).

The burden of proof is on you to show evidence that the President CAN withdraw the troops without congressional action...the thing is...I don't think such evidence exists.


blue_velvet said:
SnozzleBerry said:
Also, while you focus on the technicality of whose power it is to withdraw the troops, you ignore completely the reality of whether or not such an option would even be entertained by the corporate/financial interests that dominate American politics (and society).
Click to expand...

Well, if you put it that way, why vote for anyone? Why even argue for or against any candidate? To save me time and gas money driving to the town hall? Of course, I have entertained this notion, like many Ron Paul supporters have, and I do not believe he is tempted or corrupted. This belief in his innocence is irrational and somewhat emotional, I know, but you cannot begin to know the intentions of someone through anything other than their actions. Without some kind of belief in his incorruptibility, I would reject him along with Obama and would not vote, which would make no difference.
Click to expand...
Look, this thread was started as a VOTE RON PAUL HE'S AWESOME thread. My replies in this sense have nothing to do with my own political opinions (that violent revolution will be necessary at some point in the future if people want real change) but are designed, rather, to question the assertions and assumptions made by emotional individuals like yourself.

I do not feel that emotional feelings and "belief in [Paul's] innocence...[and] incorruptability" and "irrational and somewhat emotional" views are the manner in which to approach politics, any moreso than they would be the appropriate manner to approach a physics experiment or chemistry experiment or even a math problem. Things happen in the political arena in a very specific way and through very specific channels and for certain reasons...there is cause and effect...there are "laws" and order (in some sense) to politics. There are political phenomena that are easily explained...there are political phenomena that are hard to explain...there are political phenomena that exist only in a theoretical sense...yet all of these phenomena have been mapped out and studied; they are not mere abstractions that happen without understanding or reasons (although the understandings/reasons presented publicly may be flawed).

This is the underlying crux of the issue, to my mind. If the reason to vote for Paul is because many people have a wonderful gut-feeling about him, that's fine and dandy, but it sure as hell isn't an actual reason to vote for him. Politics is closer to science than religion...evidence can be collected...claims can be substantiated...support should be based on the hard facts...not abstract emotional impulses.
 
If the president of the united states was to stand in front of the nation of America and say he will pull the troops out no matter what the establishment says that man would be a hero. Instead you are stuck with false prophets and liers. Give Ron Paul a chance, he might surprise you.
 
DeMenTed said:
If the president of the united states was to stand in front of the nation of America and say he will pull the troops out no matter what the establishment says that man would be a hero. Instead you are stuck with false prophets and liers. Give Ron Paul a chance, he might surprise you.
Click to expand...
Please stop the empty rhetoric...what purpose does it serve?
 
SnozzleBerry said:
DeMenTed said:
If the president of the united states was to stand in front of the nation of America and say he will pull the troops out no matter what the establishment says that man would be a hero. Instead you are stuck with false prophets and liers. Give Ron Paul a chance, he might surprise you.
Click to expand...
Please stop the empty rhetoric...what purpose does it serve?
Click to expand...

Why is it empty rhetoric? You have a choice in america, not much of a choice i admit but given a chance of a guy like Ron Paul running the country or one of those other barbarians then the choice is simple. You dont really want change snozz, you seem happy with the wars and unemployment and dismantlement of your countries foundations. Why do you have such a problem with Ron Paul? why wont you give the guy a chance? Can it get any worse?
 
Yea...the guy advocating violent insurrection "doesn't really want change." :roll:

Yea...the guy commenting on the scope/scale of the Military Industrial Complex is "happy with the wars." :roll:

Yea...the guy showing how the constitution has been stripped of its power and that the vast majority of the populace is enslaved to corporate interests that are presented as "American Interests" is happy with "unemployment and dimsantlement of [my] country's foundation". :roll:

It's empty rhetoric because saying "Any president who stands up in front of America and says he'll pull the troops out" doesn't MEAN anything...you're not saying anything...it doesn't contribute anything.


Give me a break...sheesh.
 
Ok Snozz i hear ya bro. Im not clued up on American politics much in the same way as Ray of Light possibly is. We see a seemingly truthful guy who wants change in america and by golly america does need change. I acknowledge that you want change too, i was being a bit harsh if im honest.

Can you see a way out of the corporate mess snozz?
 
If Ron Paul get's the bid I'll vote for him.

However. Make no mistake about this he won't be able to accomplish any more of his 'radical' ideas than Obama could with his 'radical' ideas.

I think many on here would agree that Obama has tried hard to be a good president. But how effective has he actually been at it? Horrible. Not because of his personal views of how things should be done but because in the mid term elections we put a bunch of right wing lunatics into power that seem hell bent on destroying the entire political process of this country. Our system is actually most likely the worst system in the world for making rapid changes. We are literally one of the only nations still debating climate change. Need I say more?

Back to Ron Paul.

He is the most consistent of any candidate over the last decade I've ever seen. I certainly don't like all his ideas, but I do like a lot of them...however...please see above.

No president of the USA will ever be effective until the people of this country get off their lazy asses and rise up and take this country back from big business. It really and truly is as simple as that. This country is owned by business men. Our federal court system even views corporations as people.

We are fucked...
 
DeMenTed said:
Can you see a way out of the corporate mess snozz?
Click to expand...

Violent revolution is the only way...if not direct violence, than the threat of it and imo, the threat of it won't be enough.

One way of looking at it:

If you were one of the multi-billionaires or multi-hundred-millionaires (or even the piddly little ten-millionaires), replete with all their ideology and upbringing, what would it take to get you to surrender your unrivaled global socioeconomic power?
 
For what it is worth, if I was american..and I was going to vote(BIG if), I would vote for Ron Paul. I dont agree with everything he says, but it is not hard to see he seems more reasonable than anyone else.
 
What’s wrong with ron paul?

He doesn’t believe in the separation of church and state.
He believes abortion should be illegal.
He doesn’t support the repeal of DoMA and didn’t support the repeal of DADT.
He doesn’t support putting more money into inner-city schools, but does support vouchers for religious schools.
He believes creationism should be taught alongside evolution in public schools.
He doesn’t believe HIV causes AIDS.
While he doesn’t support a federal ban on gay marriage, he also doesn’t support a federal law legalizing gay marriage. Some see this as a states’ rights issue, and this is how he frames it, but he does support other federal legalization movements (drugs, for example).
His newsletter spouted horrible racist content for twenty years. He denies writing any of it, but if he allowed this content to go out under his name, he either approved it or was so ignorant of both the type of people he associates with and the type of content going under his name that he shouldn’t be trusted to run anything.
He believes in reinstating the gold standard, which most economists believe was one of the major causes of several financial crises at the turn of the century, including the Great Depression.
He believes in free market capitalism.
He wants to get rid of Affirmative Action, which has been shown time and again to be ineffective and not good enough.
His stance on drugs and wars win him a lot of liberal fans, but only if they don’t look at literally anything else he stands for.

Any Ron Paul fans want to take on any of the above criticisms? I still have yet to hear a compelling argument of how and why Ron Paul would be better than Obama at fixing any of the numerous problems America is having. JoeDirt has a great post above that shows how Obama has been prevented from applying any of his plans that would benefit most Americans. The biggest problem America currently faces is the complete corporate control of government and media and law.
 
Back
Top Bottom